• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Tax supporters=what is more important to you

Obama Tax Supporters=What is more Important to You

  • Saving the tax cuts for yourself (and the rich)

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Sticking it to the rich with a tax hike for everyone

    Votes: 10 90.9%

  • Total voters
    11
If Bush hadn't done his tax cut thing, he might have found a way to harness the housing bubble and reduce the deficit even further/more consistently, if not even had a few years of true surplus even despite the dot-com bust. But you know what? The point isn't that Bush shouldn't have cut taxes. The point is that you can't simply credit tax policies for deficit reduction when a credit bubble was driving the economic boom (and hence inflating tax revenues) in the first place.

Sorry the financial experts, including his own economists, say the revenues would have been bigger without the Bush tax cuts, which translates into smaller deficits.



Times were undeniably different then. The ability to do business elsewhere (sheltered from our tax rates) was much more restricted back then than it is now (with the advent of all our internet and communications technology).

That's what conservatives have said each of the few times Democrats have eliminated tax cuts for the wealthy, and it has never ever been the bad thing they try to make it out to be. In fact in every case the economy has improved after the elimination of tax cuts for the wealthy.
 
Where did I say that is all that should be done? Try addressing what I agrue. There are problems on both sides. But we must understand both cuttig spending and raising taxes need to be done.

Cutting spending needs to be done...for sure. Raising taxes...not necessarily. But, the fact is, we need to cut spending first. Any talk of doing both right now only means that the taxes will be raised and spending won't be cut...leaving us in worse shape than we are in right now.
 
Your proposals won't address our problems...they will make our problems worse.

I say no thanks to your proposals.

The choice is not yours alone. The people will decide, as it should be.
 
Sorry the financial experts, including his own economists, say the revenues would have been bigger without the Bush tax cuts, which translates into smaller deficits.





That's what conservatives have said each of the few times Democrats have eliminated tax cuts for the wealthy, and it has never ever been the bad thing they try to make it out to be. In fact in every case the economy has improved after the elimination of tax cuts for the wealthy.

You don't really believe your statement that I've highlighted, do you? More revenue has ALWAYS resulted in more spending...not smaller deficits.

And then...in your second statement...you switch from some effect on the deficit to an effect on the economy. Make up your mind what you are talking about instead of throwing a bunch of stuff against the wall, eh?
 
Cutting spending needs to be done...for sure. Raising taxes...not necessarily. But, the fact is, we need to cut spending first. Any talk of doing both right now only means that the taxes will be raised and spending won't be cut...leaving us in worse shape than we are in right now.

Did you miss the 1990s when we reduced the deficit by both cutting spending and eliminating some of the tax cuts for the wealthy?
 
You don't really believe your statement that I've highlighted, do you? More revenue has ALWAYS resulted in more spending...not smaller deficits.

I repeat, did you miss the 1990s?

And then...in your second statement...you switch from some effect on the deficit to an effect on the economy. Make up your mind what you are talking about instead of throwing a bunch of stuff against the wall, eh?

Both happened. The economy improved and the deficit was significantly reduced as a result of the both cutting spending and eliminating some of the tax cuts for the rich.
 
Did you miss the 1990s when we reduced the deficit by both cutting spending and eliminating some of the tax cuts for the wealthy?

The highlighted part is not correct.

Under Clinton, spending AND revenues went up every single fiscal year - except FY 2001, when revenues went down, but spending went up anyway.

Federal Budget Receipts and Outlays
 
Cutting spending needs to be done...for sure. Raising taxes...not necessarily. But, the fact is, we need to cut spending first. Any talk of doing both right now only means that the taxes will be raised and spending won't be cut...leaving us in worse shape than we are in right now.

Both need to be done. When we're over extended here, I take a second job and cut spending. It works real well. ;)
 
You and others in the far right minority, are the only ones talking about reducing government, and fortunately none of the far right candidates won. All the rest of us care about is reducing the deficit. making life better for people, and improving the economy.

Nevertheless, our allowing the creation of banks too big to fail through GLB was a big factor in our increased debt. Without the firewall between investment banks and commercial banks, both parties realized that we were now trapped in the position of having to bailout investment banks to prevent a collapse of the world financial market.

Not too surprising that: "Sanford Weill , the 'one-time poster boy' for creating bank supermarkets (as noted by former FDIC Chairperson Sheila Bair), was conveying during his interview. He essentially called for the return of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932, which imposed banking reforms that split banks from other financial institutions such as insurance companies. The conversation revolved around the repeal of the Act, which prohibited commercial banks from acting like investment banks, by taking on much greater risk. Although there are those who will dispute it, there is little doubt that this drastic climate change in contributed to the financial meltdowns of recent years."
Glass-Steagall: Why We Shouldn't Fix Things That Aren't Broken - Seeking Alpha

I saw that. Interesting.
 
The highlighted part is not correct.

Under Clinton, spending AND revenues went up every single fiscal year - except FY 2001, when revenues went down, but spending went up anyway.

Federal Budget Receipts and Outlays

Even more impressive that Clinton was able to reduce the deficit without cutting spending. Good point!

But it also shows that Clinton spent about half what Bush spent, and together with the tax increases was able to significantly reduce the deficit.
 
Even more impressive that Clinton was able to reduce the deficit without cutting spending. Good point!

But it also shows that Clinton spent about half what Bush spent, and together with the tax increases was able to significantly reduce the deficit.

And what it shows is

a) you had NO IDEA what you were talking about when you twice typed that Clinton reduced spending.

and b) maybe you owe Mycroft an apology for not once but twice accusing him of 'missing the 90's' when it is clear that you yourself had at least one of his 'facts' totally wrong about that period.
 
Last edited:
Yes, reducing the deficit as we did in the 1990s, (the only time we have significantly reduced the deficit in the last 30 years) by both cutting spending, mainly on the military, and increasing the tax rates for the wealthy.





Nope, because we foolishly removed the firewall between investment banks and commercial banks, allowing the investment banks to fail would have brought down the whole world economy. The question is will we learn from our mistakes.





Exactly why we need to reestablish the firewall between investment banks and commercial banks. As referenced above, even "Sanford Weill , the 'one-time poster boy' for creating bank supermarkets (as noted by former FDIC Chairperson Sheila Bair), was conveying during his interview. He essentially called for the return of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932, which imposed banking reforms that split banks from other financial institutions such as insurance companies. The conversation revolved around the repeal of the Act, which prohibited commercial banks from acting like investment banks, by taking on much greater risk. Although there are those who will dispute it, there is little doubt that this drastic climate change in contributed to the financial meltdowns of recent years."

I think most people have figured out that those who constantly support Obama's divide and conquer class warfare tax scheme really don't care about the deficit. If the deficit is so important than those tax hikers should support massive spending cuts as well as a tax increase on EVERYONE.
 
The choice is not yours alone. The people will decide, as it should be.

I love your stock response-anytime someone points out that you are really interested in income redistribution , not solving the deficit of the massive problems caused by runaway spending you spew the nonsense that somehow trumps your ability to defend your welfare socialist positions
 
Did you miss the 1990s when we reduced the deficit by both cutting spending and eliminating some of the tax cuts for the wealthy?

did you miss the boom economic times?
 
Limit the government to its constitutional functions

of course that means all the unconstitutional crap FDR rammed through will take a serious shearing

Department of education-get rid of it to start with

sell off lots of federal lands

stop paying for people to have illegitimate kids

cut back by at least 30% our military presence in places like Germany

end the war on drugs-that will eliminate 75% of the federal law enforcement costs

The current debt is just shy of $16 trillion dollars.
Each day we add some $3 billion 900 million dollars to that total.

U.S. National Debt Clock

The current years federal budget is $3.7 trillion dollars.

Just how much would each component of your 'plan' (and I use that term very very loosely) in paying that deficit and ending the annual deficit and the total debt?

Tell us with each of your 'proposals' how much we would be saving.

look at your proposals

Limit the government to its constitutional functions

of course that means all the unconstitutional crap FDR rammed through will take a serious shearing

The Supreme Court does this. The government can have no unconstitutional functions. Since you are cutting nothing - you are sving nothing. Turtle does not get to decide what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional. That has already been done.

Department of education-get rid of it to start with

Okay. And how much is that going to save?

sell off lots of federal lands

So you want to have a fire sale an get rid of Yosemite,Yellowstone and the rest. And how much will that raise and where is the public support for such a radical and extremely short term idea?

Lets look at the right wing wet dream on this issue since both Ryan and Santorum have eagerly lapped it up

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...eserving-40-billion-in-tax-breaks-to-big-oil/

A government witness at a hearing on Chaffetz’s proposal last fall noted that the sale of these lands would be “unlikely to generate revenue.” On the other hand, public lands managed by the Interior Department stimulated $363 billion in economic activity in 2010.
stop paying for people to have illegitimate kids

And how much would that save from the federal budget?

cut back by at least 30% our military presence in places like Germany

And how much would that save us?

And what then is the total of your savings?

end the war on drugs-that will eliminate 75% of the federal law enforcement costs
 
Last edited:
The choice is not yours alone. The people will decide, as it should be.

Your kidding me...right?

The people don't decide anything. The politicians do.

If the people decided anything, we wouldn't be saddled with that crappy Obamacare. The people didn't want it. Heck, a bunch of politicians...on both sides...didn't want it. That didn't stop us from getting it, though.

LOL!!!

"The people will decide..."
 
Did you miss the 1990s when we reduced the deficit by both cutting spending and eliminating some of the tax cuts for the wealthy?

Uh...yeah. I think this statement has been dismissed. No comment from me necessary.

Of course, the fact that it's been dismissed won't stop you from repeating your lie, I'm sure.
 
Both need to be done. When we're over extended here, I take a second job and cut spending. It works real well. ;)

The thing is...we have no reason to believe Congress WILL do both.

Tell me, what do you do when you've taken a second job...you've cut spending...but your wife continues to spend like a drunken sailor? Do you take a third job? Or do you force her to stop spending?
 
It makes good sense to have some sort of progressive tax in this country but I think paying federal taxes should start at a much lower income at a much lower rate than the top money makers through just about all income levels with the richest among us paying the most of course. The argument for me would become what is the top marginal rate. It cannot and should not be some ridiculous level like 70 to 80 percent, in fact it should not be above 50%. Everyone should have a stake in this country and be affected by what Congress does in the way of taxes.
 
The thing is...we have no reason to believe Congress WILL do both.

Tell me, what do you do when you've taken a second job...you've cut spending...but your wife continues to spend like a drunken sailor? Do you take a third job? Or do you force her to stop spending?

No one asking you to believe. The same type of legislation that makes taxes possible can be written to make cuts possible. What you have to is to ask for it written in the same stone as taxes.
 
Your kidding me...right?

The people don't decide anything. The politicians do.

If the people decided anything, we wouldn't be saddled with that crappy Obamacare. The people didn't want it. Heck, a bunch of politicians...on both sides...didn't want it. That didn't stop us from getting it, though.

LOL!!!

"The people will decide..."


The people decide who the politicians are that represent them. Health care reform was one of the reasons the people chose Obama over McCain.
 
Uh...yeah. I think this statement has been dismissed. No comment from me necessary.

Of course, the fact that it's been dismissed won't stop you from repeating your lie, I'm sure.

"Under Clinton, the United States had a projected federal budget surplus for the first time since 1969 in the 1998 federal budget; the budgets for 1999, 2000, and 2001 also had surpluses."

Presidency of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I think most people have figured out that those who constantly support Obama's divide and conquer class warfare tax scheme really don't care about the deficit. If the deficit is so important than those tax hikers should support massive spending cuts as well as a tax increase on EVERYONE.

Another post in which you completely disregard what people actually say instead opting to pretend to read their minds with your extra ordinary powers so that you truly know what they think despite any evidence to the contrary.

This seems to be a growing habit for you lately.
 
No one asking you to believe. The same type of legislation that makes taxes possible can be written to make cuts possible. What you have to is to ask for it written in the same stone as taxes.

Give me a break. This isn't some fantasy world we are living in.

The legislation is never written the way you envision...it's always written as: Implement increased taxes now...promise to cut a certain amount over a certain period of time. The result: Taxes increase right now...the cuts never happen.

The only way to end this procedure is to implement spending cuts...with no conditions. Just do it. After we see reduced government spending, THEN...we can talk about tax increases.

But, of course, as long as there are Democrats around...especially if they control at least one branch of Congress...this'll never happen. The result: What we have now...both sides trying to spin things to make the other side look bad...and nothing getting done.

So it goes.
 
The people decide who the politicians are that represent them. Health care reform was one of the reasons the people chose Obama over McCain.

No it wasn't.

The reason Obama got elected is because he succeeded in painting McCain as Bush...and he suckered people with all of his lies about an "open and transparent" government. Besides, he lied about health care reform as well. He promised to reduce health care costs. Instead he and his Democrat buddies implemented a huge government take-over of a segment of our industry. Over the objections of the people, I might add.

Now. You are correct that the people select the politicians to represent them. But it sucks when the politician lies to get elected and then the people turn around and believe the next bunch of lies when they re-elect them. We can see this happening again in the current election campaign.
 
Back
Top Bottom